24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4?

Decisions decisions. Looking for a general purpose lens and can't make up my mind.
The 24-70 f2.8 L, or the 24-105 f4 L?
Would I be better off to pay an extra £100 for an extra stop, or is the longer focal length going to be more beneficial? I'm sure there are people who will argue both cases. The thing is, I've never had a quality lens that opens up to F2.8, and I can't recall being in many situations when I haven't been able to get 'the shot' because I can't open to that aperture. After all, if the light's a bit low I can always up the ISO. But I'm sure there have been occasions when I just wish I had that bit more zoom in the lens.
However, I'm sure if I have the extra stop, it would come in just as handy as the extra bit of zoom.
Has anyone purchased the 24-70 f2.8 and then wished they'd gone for the 24-105 f4? Or vice versa?

Decisions decisions. Looking for a general purpose lens and can't make up my mind.
The 24-70 f2.8 L, or the 24-105 f4 L?

Would I be better off to pay an extra £100 for an extra stop, or is the longer focal length going to be more beneficial? I'm sure there are people who will argue both cases. The thing is, I've never had a quality lens that opens up to F2.8, and I can't recall being in many situations when I haven't been able to get 'the shot' because I can't open to that aperture. After all, if the light's a bit low I can always up the ISO. But I'm sure there have been occasions when I just wish I had that bit more zoom in the lens.

However, I'm sure if I have the extra stop, it would come in just as handy as the extra bit of zoom.

Has anyone purchased the 24-70 f2.8 and then wished they'd gone for the 24-105 f4? Or vice versa?

24-70: the f2.8 will giev you shallower creative DOF and an extra stop for freezing movement in low light (such as natural-light indoor photography)
24-105: lighter, smaller and has IS.
Quality wise, the consensus is just in favour of the 24-70 but it is not a cut and dried decision (if it was, there would not be a debate) so I would say consider utility first.
My preference would be the 24-105 because the greater focal range and the IS woul dmake it more of a 'general purpose'. However if you do a lot of portrait/indoor photography the f2.8 may be more useful. So monstersnowman's questions are an important part of your decision.

24-70: the f2.8 will giev you shallower creative DOF and an extra stop for freezing movement in low light (such as natural-light indoor photography)
24-105: lighter, smaller and has IS.
Quality wise, the consensus is just in favour of the 24-70 but it is not a cut and dried decision (if it was, there would not be a debate) so I would say consider utility first.

My preference would be the 24-105 because the greater focal range and the IS woul dmake it more of a 'general purpose'. However if you do a lot of portrait/indoor photography the f2.8 may be more useful. So monstersnowman's questions are an important part of your decision.

You're last pic was taken with a FF 5d.
The extra reach of the 105 swung it for me and I'm on a crop sensor 60d
I don't see any shallow DOF shots on your profile so assume that f2.8 is not needed for your typical shots.
That said, I always wonder about what I don't have.

You're last pic was taken with a FF 5d.
The extra reach of the 105 swung it for me and I'm on a crop sensor 60d
I don't see any shallow DOF shots on your profile so assume that f2.8 is not needed for your typical shots.
That said, I always wonder about what I don't have.

I have a 24-70, my wife has a 24-105. Croticallly, if I only had access to one of them I'd make it the 24-70, as I perceive less distortion with the shorter lens. That said the 105 is a better holiday/walk around lens because of it's extra reach.

I have a 24-70, my wife has a 24-105. Croticallly, if I only had access to one of them I'd make it the 24-70, as I perceive less distortion with the shorter lens. That said the 105 is a better holiday/walk around lens because of it's extra reach.

i would go for the 24-70 although if the 24-105 has IS, then the extra stop on teh 24-70 would not be as significant in low light unless you were definately looking for a small depth of field.
Have you "played" with them both? if not let how they feel decide.

i would go for the 24-70 although if the 24-105 has IS, then the extra stop on teh 24-70 would not be as significant in low light unless you were definately looking for a small depth of field.

I had the 24-70 and the lack of IS and lack of reach forced me to get the 24-105 and sell the 24-70, never regretted it as the 105 is an excellent lens, ok it is f/4 but this has been ok for 99% of what I do, and when it isn't I get out my nifty fity f/1.8.

I had the 24-70 and the lack of IS and lack of reach forced me to get the 24-105 and sell the 24-70, never regretted it as the 105 is an excellent lens, ok it is f/4 but this has been ok for 99% of what I do, and when it isn't I get out my nifty fity f/1.8.

Yes - sorry good people - I neglected to say I'm on full frame on a 5d.
I want to start doing some more long exposure experimental stuff, so the wider aperture isn't an issue there as a tripod will be used.
But like I said, a quality lens for general purpose use.
I'm leaning towards the 24-105, that's not because one leg is shorter than the other, it's the IS (although I rarely use that on the lens I use that has that feature) and the additional bit of zoom. I think it's also a little bit lighter. And with regards the extra stop, I guess I can do without what I have done without so far, and there's always Photoshop for selective focusing right?
Not has a chance to play, but FOI is coming up soon isn't it. Maybe there will be a bargain to be had.

Yes - sorry good people - I neglected to say I'm on full frame on a 5d.
I want to start doing some more long exposure experimental stuff, so the wider aperture isn't an issue there as a tripod will be used.
But like I said, a quality lens for general purpose use.
I'm leaning towards the 24-105, that's not because one leg is shorter than the other, it's the IS (although I rarely use that on the lens I use that has that feature) and the additional bit of zoom. I think it's also a little bit lighter. And with regards the extra stop, I guess I can do without what I have done without so far, and there's always Photoshop for selective focusing right?
Not has a chance to play, but FOI is coming up soon isn't it. Maybe there will be a bargain to be had.